Law Society of Singapore v Seow Theng Beng Samuel
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 18 May 2022 |
Neutral Citation | [2022] SGHC 112 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Originating Summons No 4 of 2020 |
Published date | 21 May 2022 |
Year | 2022 |
Hearing Date | 28 February 2022 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Dhillon Dinesh Singh, Loong Tse Chuan and Alisa Toh Qian Wen (Dai Qianwen) (Allen & Gledhill LLP) |
Defendant Counsel | Pereira Edmond Avethas and Cheung Shu Jia Jessica (Edmond Pereira Law Corporation) |
Citation | [2022] SGHC 112 |
C3J/OS 4/2020 (“OS 4”) is an application by the Law Society of Singapore (the “Law Society”) for the respondent to be sanctioned under s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”), in relation to eight instances of misconduct against his employees. The respondent was charged in relation to these instances of misconduct before a disciplinary tribunal, which found that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action.
Having heard the parties and having considered their submissions, we are satisfied that there is due cause for the respondent to be sanctioned, and that the appropriate sanction is for him to be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors. In this judgment, we elaborate more generally on the considerations that warrant an order striking off a legal practitioner, and why the respondent has engaged those considerations.
BackgroundThe respondent is a solicitor of 20 years’ standing. At the material time, he was the Managing Director of Samuel Seow Law Corporation (“SSLC”). He also owned and managed a talent management company known as Beam Artistes Pte Ltd (“Beam Artistes”), which shared the same office premises as SSLC.
The eight instances of misconduct which form the basis of the Law Society’s application occurred in a one-month period running from 16 March 2018 to 17 April 2018. They may be summarised as follows:
In respect of each instance of misconduct, the Law Society brought:
A disciplinary tribunal heard the matter from 14 to 16 August 2019 and on 26 September 2019 and 19 November 2019. On the first day of the hearing, the respondent pleaded guilty to the Sixth to Eighth Charges, as well as the part of the Fifth Charge relating to his threat to take a knife to kill Ms Kang, while contesting the remaining charges. Subsequently, on 19 November 2019, the respondent pleaded guilty to the remaining charges.
On 10 March 2020, the disciplinary tribunal issued its report, in which it found that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under s 93(1)(
The Law Society then filed OS 4 for an order pursuant to s 94(1) read with s 98(1) of the LPA that the respondent be sanctioned under s 83(1) of the LPA.
On 27 July 2020, the respondent pleaded guilty to criminal charges arising out of the events reflected in the Fifth to Eighth Charges. This led to a Newton hearing regarding the evidence he led in relation to his psychiatric state at the material time. In C3J/SUM 2/2021, the respondent sought an order that the hearing of OS 4 be held in abeyance, pending the completion of the Newton hearing. In
We heard the parties on 28 February 2022. The respondent was represented by Mr Eugene Thuraisingam at the hearing, although he appointed new solicitors shortly thereafter (see [20]–[21] below).
Issues in this application There are two issues in OS 4:
The Law Society submits that there is due cause for disciplinary action, and seeks to have the respondent struck off the roll, or in the alternative to have the respondent suspended from practice for a minimum of four years. The respondent, on the other hand, suggests that there is no due cause, though he submits that if due cause is found, an appropriate sanction would be a penalty of $40,000 and censure.
Whether there is due cause for disciplinary action Applicable standards At the time of the misconduct, ss 83(2)(
Power to strike off roll, etc.
…
…
…
In
The factors indicating due cause for disciplinary action[emphasis added]
The Law Society submits that the respondent’s conduct is in and of itself sufficiently serious as to provide due cause for disciplinary action. It further argues that the seriousness of the respondent’s conduct is exacerbated by (a) his position of authority over Ms Kang, Ms Kong and Ms Tan; (b) the fact that the eight instances of misconduct appear to be part of a broader pattern of intemperate and boorish conduct; and (c) the respondent’s lack of genuine remorse.
We agree that the foregoing factors suffice to establish that there is due cause for disciplinary action. As was noted in
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Law Society of Singapore v CNH
...HC (refd) Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o Madasamy [2016] 5 SLR 1141, HC (refd) Law Society of Singapore v Seow Theng Beng Samuel [2022] SGHC 112 (folld) Law Society of Singapore v Tay Eng Kwee Edwin [2007] 4 SLR(R) 171; [2007] 4 SLR 171 (refd) Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o ......
-
Law Society of Singapore v Lun Yaodong Clarence
...SLR 696 (folld) Law Society of Singapore v Seow Theng Beng Samuel [2020] SGDT 2 (refd) Law Society of Singapore v Seow Theng Beng Samuel [2022] SGHC 112 (folld) Law Society of Singapore v Tan See Leh Jonathan [2020] 5 SLR 418 (folld) Law Society of Singapore v Yap Bock Heng Christopher [201......
-
Law Society of Singapore v CNH
...solicitors. In this regard, we refer to the sentencing framework we have set out in Law Society of Singapore v Seow Theng Beng Samuel [2022] SGHC 112 at [41] (“Samuel Seow”), which we also apply to the present case (see [51] below). The respondent was admitted to the roll of advocates and s......
-
Law Society of Singapore v Lun Yaodong Clarence
...of remorse: see Law Society of Singapore v Ooi Oon Tat [2022] SGHC 185 at [48]; Law Society of Singapore v Seow Theng Beng Samuel [2022] SGHC 112 (“Samuel Seow”) at [19] read with The Law Society of Singapore v Seow Theng Beng Samuel [2020] SGDT 2 at [51]). More fundamentally, the responden......